A friend of mine on Facebook whom I absolutely love for his fascinating arguments for the historicity of not only Jesus but his miracles (which he claims there is historical consensus on) yet can’t seem to see how universal reconciliation can be incorporated into Christianity because he thinks that it defeats the entire point.
I’ve tried to counter this a few times, but have been trying to work on better arguments to show the illogicalness of it. For one, if someone believed that God is good and sin will naturally lead to pain and death, then why would they follow the latter path? And if they don’t believe then they wouldn’t be a Christian anyway. Perhaps there is some room in the middle for people on the fence, but I’d think that doubts or alternatively faith would lead in those directions accordingly.
But this is probably the best analogy I can come up with so far:
Some people, despite very severe third degree burns, are able to have surgery done on them so that they are restored to their former health and appearance.
Yet because of this, would anyone willingly play in a burning house simply because they figure that they can be made right again and everything will go back to normal?
And if not, then why would anyone who genuinely believed that hell existed play around with a lifestyle that would lead down that path, even if they DID think that eventually they’d be saved from it? It makes no more sense if hell is of finite duration then if it is of infinite duration.
Basically… if someone realizes that the path to blessing and union with God can only be turning back around and going the opposite direction, and that the further they go, the further they’ll have to come back, then why would they even continue?
The gospel of grace was perverted, too. And what was Paul’s response to those who said, “Let us sin so that grace may be increased?” Simple - “Their condemnation is deserved.” And rightly so - they’re mindfully, consciously sealing their own fate…